<p>*I tell you what, FF - how about we make a deal: I’ll suck up to Bush if you or your kid(s) will pay my kids’ share of the national debt, okay? Let’s see, that comes to $74,000 and change - with interest accruing daily.
*</p>
<p>Now this is not the way it is supposed to work. Your kids are expected to pay their share of the national debt as well as that for the children of the major beneficiaries of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.</p>
<p>The gap between the rich and the middle class began to accelerate subsequent to 1980. It is no coincidence that this also was the period during which we had the Reagan and Bush trickle down economics - though that is a term which Repubs don’t care to use.</p>
<p>The amazing thing is that so many people voted for Bush in 2004 despite getting shafted through the tax cuts that were passed during his first term in office. Quite honestly, I am in awe of the sleight of hand that was pulled by the Bush and his cronies in making the average person believe that they were given a fair shake.</p>
<p>I really should not be complaining given that my wife and I have actually come out well ahead because of Bush’s tax cuts. Perhaps it is growing up in the 60s’ which causes this sort of disparity to gnaw a tad at my conscience.</p>
<p>Got it in one, MM. It doesn’t need much belaboring. I confess, I bear personal responsibility for this:</p>
<p>It was an August night in 1974 and I was having pizza and beer with my roommate in a little Greek-run pizza joint off of Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. Nixon had resigned earlier in the day and I made the mistake of saying, “At least we’ll never have another president this bad again.” As luck would have it, the Fates and the Furies must have been hovering nearby, waiting for their take-out order (a Greek-run place, remember?) and overheard me. The rest, as they say, is history.</p>
Huh??? Sound bites?? OK, you reject the opinion of a Nobel prize winner in economics and respond with Democratic talking points … and you accuse me of using sound bites? Riiiiight. If you were really worried about tour kids’ future, you would give more thought to the quick-fix, short-sighted view of just raising taxes on the wealthy and look at the long-term big picture. </p>
<p>I would love to think that just by raising oog’s, SBmom’s, Driver’s and your taxes that all of our problems would be solved. Unfortumately, as generally is the case, solutions to big issues are not found in simple solutions.</p>
kluge, I’m sorry, but if you think that the economy of 7 years ago was anything but a fluke then it “speaks volumes about the depth of your analysis” and it is no wonder that you reject the views of serious economists and stick with the simplistic “tax our way to a better economy” solution. God help us and our children if we elect people with your economic perspective in the future.</p>
<p>I’ve always wondered if anyone is duped by the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid song and dance routine about the economy of the late-90’s and wouldn’t it be great to go back to those times with the Democratic agenda - I guess you are one.</p>
<p>“Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid song and dance routine about the economy of the late-90’s and wouldn’t it be great to go back to those times with the Democratic agenda”</p>
<p>Late 90s? Pelosi/Reid would love to adopt the socialist system of the 1960’s. Their reply to the 2005 State of the Union speech was taking the term “misguided moron” to a new height.</p>
<p>xiggi, true enough, but they hold out the “magic” of the late 90’s for those who are naive enough to think that Democratic policy had anything to do with the period. </p>
<p>Actually, speaking as someone who was in the industry that was most impacted by that bubble, and who was at the epicenter of its very sudden and tragic demise, I can say that I would NEVER want to return to those days and would love to be able to BLAME the Democrats for creating the aura of “irrational exuberance” that existed back then. </p>
<p>We went from having competitors hiring airplanes to fly over our buildings pulling banners and roving billboards on trucks coming to our front entance solicting our employees to join them, to massive layoffs in just a few short months. Every week employees were told whether they were going to be employed for another week or not. Those who weren’t went crying back to their office to pick up their personal belongings and out they went. That type of economy should never be repeated.</p>
<p>FF, are you even aware that you never actually respond to the posts I make, but instead set up your own straw men and then rant about them, usually throwing in a hefty dash of your hatred of Europeans and various politicians who have nothing to do with what I posted? </p>
<p>Xiggi - good to see you here. You want to take a stab at the 4 questions FF won’t touch with a 10 foot pole? Here they are:</p>
<ol>
<li> Are taxes ever too low? (Hint: start at zero!)</li>
<li> Is there ever a point at which borrowing to meet expenditures instead of meeting them through current taxation is a problem?<br></li>
<li> Can the process of juicing the economy short-term by lowering tax rates ever hit bottom? and,</li>
<li> Has there ever been a point in American history when the economy was as strong or stronger than it is now and taxes were higher? (Let’s have a contest and see who can come up with the most “special cases” - How about the 60’s?)</li>
</ol>
<p>What is striking to me is the abject failure of just about every policy and initiative that the Bush administration has pursued. Has there been an administration in the past few decades that has had such an appalling track record? Even the economic success lauded by Bush has been limited to a relatively select few - which is why polls indicate a failing grade when it comes to the economy. Most people are just not the beneficiaries of the economic recovery.</p>
<p>Bush’s policy in Iraq has been a disaster. It has impacted not only that country but has shifted resources from Afghanistan which has resulted in the Taliban making a resurgence of sorts. The much heralded Karzai survives only because security is provided by American troops. He is for all intents and purposes - at best - the mayor of Kabul, even if he is described as being the president of Afghanistan. Even more remarkable is that Bush holds no one responsible for the fiasco. The only thing that can get someone fired is if the individual does not toe the party line.</p>
<p>George Will - no liberal by any stretch of the imagination - said after Katrina, that conservative administrations were not known for their compassion but they were known for their competence. He went on to say that the Bush administration was just plain incompetent. If Homeland Security is not able to plan for an event such as a hurricane that was forecast days before the event to be on its way, I dread to think what would happen if there were a terrorist attack using a dirty bomb or some other WMD.</p>
<p>Bush appoints Porter Goss to head up the CIA and Goss pretty lets the place implode leaving his successor to have to perform a salvage operation including trying to recruit people who were either fired or resigned from the CIA. </p>
<p>Bush’s MO is to let the mess he has created be solved by his successor. He pretty much said that with regard to Iraq - and that is what will happen with the economy as well.</p>
poorly phrased question - I have no idea what you are asking
Another poorly phrased question … define “strong” - certainly the late 90s are not a good example, and the 60s were marked by very high poverty rates. But then you wave those off just as you wave off anything that smacks of data or expert opinion if it doesn’t support your unsubstantiated views.</p>
<p>And, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t put words into my mouth about “hating Europeans”. I work very closely with Europeans in my job and consider them to be good friends. To disagree with the economic system of a country has nothing to do with how you feel about the people. I feel sorry for them that they have to deal with an economy that is so sick and worry that we will end up with a Democratic regime that puts on on a path to emulate them.</p>
<p>Seems that the “Republican regime” is doing a bang up job with our economy at the moment.</p>
<p>Can only borrow for so long, before the lenders come calling. Our economy is artificially propped up by tax cuts and debt. Hardly anything to brag about.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Are taxes ever too low? (Hint: start at zero!)
Yes, actually I believe that our current taxes are too low. Yet I also consider them excessive for the services we receive. For instance, I would support a repeal or drastic reduction of local property taxes in favor of a national tax to fund education. I also believe that the current tax brackets are too low … in the lower brackets. Surprise, surprise! </p></li>
<li><p>Is there ever a point at which borrowing to meet expenditures instead of meeting them through current taxation is a problem?
Of course.</p></li>
<li><p>Can the process of juicing the economy short-term by lowering tax rates ever hit bottom?
Yes, when the amount of money transferred by the public sector to the private citizens is not spent in the short term. A case that is not about to happen with the consuming over-indulgence of Americans. </p></li>
<li><p>Has there ever been a point in American history when the economy was as strong or stronger than it is now and taxes were higher? (Let’s have a contest and see who can come up with the most “special cases” - How about the 60’s?)
I’d have to check a bunch of facts to offer a reasonably smart answer. On the surface, it seems that the US economy might have been quite strong during the final year of WW2 and I assume that the Revenue Act of 1942 started the spiral of rising taxes. I am not so sure about how long it lasted before the returning soldiers exacerbated the unemployment issue. And, of course, people seem to mention the Golden Sixties with a fair amount of nostalgia. As far as the 90s, smoke and mirrors, under-investments in crucial sectors, and illusory gains come to mind.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“Our economy is artificially propped up by tax cuts and debt. Hardly anything to brag about.”</p>
<p>Did you -or your pension fund- like the 1999-2001 period better? Ever think what could have happened if we pursued the cynical laissez-faire of the previous administration from 2001 to today? Do you think the Dow Jones would have been close to today’s number despite outing out the poster children of the free-for-all 1990s named Worldcom’s and Tyco’s?</p>
<p>The world is very different in the 2000s than in the 1990s when it was possible to turn inwards, ignore the global forces, and pass the buck.</p>
<p>“Seems that the “Republican regime” is doing a bang up job with our economy at the moment.”</p>
<p>Actually, by all impartial accounts the economy is doing very well right now. Of course if you listen to the Democrats and their media mouthpieces you would never know that.</p>